BMFA budget

[kc]

2 hours ago, Erfolg said:

It seems from the accounts Page 7 that the NFC had a deficit of £ approx. £78,000 for year? If so how and why.

 

What is the explanation?    That figure ( if correct ) would seem to be about £3 per member to subsidise the NFC when we were told it would pay for itself!  Or around a third of the value of the building that was sold!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

52 minutes ago, Erfolg said:

John, the Senior fee is Quoted as £42 for 2023/24, Forecast as £52 in the  2026/27 accounting year, hence the anticipated £10. 

 

Maybe I have brain fog ? Current years £47, proposed rise to £49, forecast £52, I see £5, see no mention in your post of the long gone year of the £42 fee.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

24 minutes ago, kc said:

What is the explanation?    That figure ( if correct ) would seem to be about £3 per member to subsidise the NFC when we were told it would pay for itself!  Or around a third of the value of the building that was sold!

 

See Christopher Long post, previous page.

[Christopher Long 1]

On 04/11/2024 at 14:22, Christopher Long 1 said:

If you had watched the AGM (or as I did attended virtually on ZOOM as a club delegate) then you would have seen that the £63,456 rates bill for the National Centre included an back dated amount that resulted from the work that the BMFA has done to improve and renovate the buildings and facilities at the site which has led to the local authority increasing the rateable value by a significant amount and then back dating it!
So in future the annual rates bill should be nearer half of that amount (at a guess). Also people should note that the National Centre is now the BMFA HQ and that allowed the BMFA to sell the old HQ with a gain of £218,000 (and also reduces ongoing costs) which after tax etc allowed £200,000 to be added to the reserves. This years AGM was also held at the National Centre again making savings by not having to hire a venue for the AGM.
If you take out the back dated rates bill and the cost of setting up the cafe (which cost around £10,000 of which most has been recovered from takings since it opened, but won't appear until next years accounts are published) then the National Centre at worst broke even in 23/24. This is a good result as the poor spring/summer r hit income due to a number of events being cancelled. Again, this was made clear at the AGM.
I know some say that figures never lie, but they don't always tell the whole story either and used without context can be misleading! 

I have quoted my earlier post for the benefit of Erfolg and KC. Perhaps if both Erfolg and KC, (who I assume are BMFA members) had bothered to accept the invitation to view the AGM via ZOOM, (no travel involved) and request the password so that they can access the relevant AGM documents they would have a better understanding of the true picture instead of the uninformed half truths they want to believe. I live over 200 miles away from the National Centre - so I am unlikely to visit anytime soon, however everyone I know who has, says it is a great place to visit and fly from and is a credit to the BMFA and the volunteers who run it, and yes from the figures I see the BMFA can afford it and I support its continued existence.

[Erfolg]

My response and acknowledgement seems to have disappeared into the ether. 

 

Essentially states that the rates issue had been flagged up a number of years back, then concerns were dismissed as scaremongering.

 

The £10 was arrived  at by looking at the £42, 2023/2024 and the £52 2026/27 forecast. It just seems a recognition as to which way the wind is blowing, and potentially the types of measures that may be necessary.

 

You my not believe it, I want the BMFA to be able to carry out its current functions into future.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 minute ago, Erfolg said:

My response and acknowledgement seems to have disappeared into the ether. 

 

Essentially states that the rates issue had been flagged up a number of years back, then concerns were dismissed as scaremongering.

 

The £10 was arrived  at by looking at the £42, 2023/2024 and the £52 2026/27 forecast. It just seems a recognition as to which way the wind is blowing, and potentially the types of measures that may be necessary.

 

You my not believe it, I want the BMFA to be able to carry out its current functions into future.

 

Using the £42 paints a false picture. Despite repeated reassurances the past is dragged up, to present a negative slant. Believe or not the BMFA intends to carry out it's functions into the future.

[Ron Gray]

51 minutes ago, Christopher Long 1 said:

I live over 200 miles away from the National Centre - so I am unlikely to visit anytime soon, however everyone I know who has, says it is a great place to visit and fly from and is a credit to the BMFA and the volunteers who run it,

It really is worth while trying to visit it, of course being totally biased I would suggest that you earmark the 1st - 3rd August next year and make a little holiday out of it.

[payneib]

It is genuinely worth family trip.

[kc]

Whenever the extra rate was demanded it still is a loss to the society if it was not or is not recovered from users.   Membership may drop even further if subs go up to subsidise the NFC or anything else which is of benefit only to a minority of members.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I've been to event days as a spectator, free entry, bite to eat, lovely site.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Done a little editing gents, let's keep it civil please.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I’m not qualified to examine accounts in any detail but there might be calculations involving the sale of the old Leicester HQ building and relocation of some of the admin functions to Buckminster to help explain any apparent cross funding?

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, kc said:

Whenever the extra rate was demanded it still is a loss to the society if it was not or is not recovered from users.   Membership may drop even further if subs go up to subsidise the NFC or anything else which is of benefit only to a minority of members.

I don't know if you listened to the original discussion about the NFC but it was made plain then that there would be no subsidy from the membership fee.  There was a subsidy provided by our then insurers and not having looked at the Finances this year I don't know what that figure is.  However, if you take into account the fact that the cost of running the Leicester HQ, now that we have moved the BMFA HQ to Buckminster, is a perfectly legitimate cost for "Buckminster" to charge the BMFA membership.  

 

You keep bringing up stuff that has been long dealt with.  Do you even remember what was said during the period the the NFC was being discussed?  You may not know this but the BMFA Finance Member is an ex HM Treasury guy who is very well versed in financial matters.  Indeed, it was he who spotted the error made in the presentation at Council during the run up to the NFC decision that Insurance Broker's sponsorship had been used twice!  No one else spotted it!  That caused a frantic rejigging of figures so that eventually the books balanced.  That resulted in cuts to various projects.

 

You keep going on about the NFC being of benefit to only a minority of members.  You do not think about the work that is done by having senior people come to the Centre and have their eyes opened to what the BMFA is about.  This includes Government officials and politicians.  That work is for the benefit of all members not just a few.

 

Finally, folk go on about the competition minded folk running the BMFA for their own purposes.  Let me just point out, that were it not for these people there would be no BMFA as no one else would be bothered to put in the effort since there would be nothing in it for them.  Just think of how Clubs are run and how it comes down to a small cadre of folk without whose efforts there would be no Club and, evenutally, no BMFA.

[RottenRow]

2 hours ago, Christopher Long 1 said:

I live over 200 miles away from the National Centre - so I am unlikely to visit anytime soon,

I presently live about 50 miles from Buckminster, and visit quite a few times each year for scale events and others that are of interest to me

Within the next year I shall be relocating and will be closer to 300 miles from Buckminster. I won’t be able to visit anything like as often, but it won’t change my opinion of the place, its excellent facilities and brilliant atmosphere.

 

As the National Centre has had some of the previous operations from Chacksfield House transferred to it then there should surely be no reason why a proportionate amount of the costs of running the previous head office should not be transferred as a credit to the National Centre.

 

Brian.

[Martyn K]

4 hours ago, kc said:

What is the explanation?    That figure ( if correct ) would seem to be about £3 per member to subsidise the NFC when we were told it would pay for itself!  Or around a third of the value of the building that was sold!

The additional cost for Bucky is (I believe) due to the tax that is now liable because part of the BMFA Office function has transferred from Chacksfield House - which has now been closed (part of the cost cutting exercise that has been ongoing for at least 4 years). That was the major part of the deficit. Attendance at Bucky has been down most of the year - primarily due to the awful weather we have/are experiencing. Footfall is definitely down.

 

A few other comments. If you are a member of an affiliated club, then your vote is carried by that club. It is weighted (if necessary) by any attendee at the AGM by calling for a 'Card Vote' at which point the club's total membership is included in the vote. It becomes proportional representation. If you are complaining that your club does not attend or is not represented at either the Area Ordinary Meetings or the BMFA AGM or Area AGM, then complain to your committee.  If you are a Country Member, then each Area has the right to appoint a Country Member delegate who can vote on your behalf. 

 

There is always a lot of grumbling in a post like this and I generally ignore it, however, almost every Area needs volunteers who can provide a few hours work per year. Nothing onerous, but please do not complain about the work of the BMFA which is 99% run by a volunteer base when you are not prepared to volunteer to help. I have been NW Area Delegate and NW Area Chairman for a number of years. Far and away the biggest problem I have is lack of input from clubs who just cannot be bothered to appoint a delegate who will attend just 4 meetings per year. If you have any great ideas then please tell your Area Chair. I am sure they will be delighted to hear from you.

[steve too]

47 minutes ago, Martyn K said:

Far and away the biggest problem I have is lack of input from clubs who just cannot be bothered to appoint a delegate who will attend just 4 meetings per year.

 

If the BMFA got rid of the areas would the average club member notice?

[steve too]

3 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I don't know if you listened to the original discussion about the NFC but it was made plain then that there would be no subsidy from the membership fee. ...

 

It would have been better if this promise had not been made. I doubt if many people who have looked at the budgets believe it.

 

3 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

... You may not know this but the BMFA Finance Member is an ex HM Treasury guy ...

 

Is being ex-Treasury supposed to be a good thing?

 

[Martyn K]

14 hours ago, steve too said:

 

If the BMFA got rid of the areas would the average club member notice?

The Area is the conduit for clubs in the Area to interface with the BMFA. My role has Area Delegate is to take the ideas and thoughts that clubs have back to the Board via the Areas Council meeting. Those clubs that are very active, run events , seek flying accreditations etc would certainly miss the Area.

 

The Area also acts as a moderator, ensuring that any changes recommended by the board are in the interests of the members. That in itself, justifies the Areas.

 

I agree that the organisation of the Areas is not ideal but its the best we have at the moment. As I said earlier, we are always receptive to ideas for improvement.

 

[Ron Gray]

The areas also can give some financial assistance to clubs holding events.

 

39 minutes ago, Martyn K said:

we are always receptive to ideas for improvement

Unfortunately there are some who find it really easy to criticise and do little else.

[Peter Jenkins]

16 hours ago, steve too said:

 

It would have been better if this promise had not been made. I doubt if many people who have looked at the budgets believe it.

 

 

Is being ex-Treasury supposed to be a good thing?

 

If the promise hadn't been made there wouldn't be any NFC.  Simples.

 

There is a diffference between being a politician in the Treasury and somekne who has spent their lifetime assessing financial issues for both the Government and the private sector.  They are far better qualified in assessing financial viability, value for money and risks than almost all of the commenters on this thread.  It is politicians who muddy the water by taking decisions based on a political basis where hope and not financial facts are the currency.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

 .

Edited November 6 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Would be an act of self harm to remove the areas, imo.

[Bruce Collinson]

21 hours ago, steve too said:

 

It would have been better if this promise had not been made. I doubt if many people who have looked at the budgets believe it.

 

 

Is being ex-Treasury supposed to be a good thing?

 

Better than it being done by a dyspraxic jobsworth, wouldn’t you agree?   Never forget, there are three sorts of accountants; those who can add up and those who can’t.

[Rich Griff]

Cost saving.....

 

Did the meeting alter the free edition of the bmfa news hard copy sent to every member in February ?

 

See 2024 Feb edition page 5, the box at the botton of the page.

 

Since mag is free on line for those that want it on line, no hard copy for them. If mag is to be continued, and I sincerely hope that it will be since it *sells itself* at no cost to the company, ( Andy says it's self funding etc .. )  and customers are willing to pay £10 for the "magic" 3 copies ( Feb hard copy is free at the moment ? ) Morphing into 4 hard copies, does that not save the company money. At say £1 per copy, 27,000 members, £27000 not spent. Don't forget the mailing costs as well, not sent out, no cost .

 

Torture logic.....hard copy devoties happy as more or less nothing has changed, digital devoties happy as no real change, but £27k + not spent, ie saved.

 

All depends if anything was changed in the meeting as regards the mag.....

 

Can you confirm please Andy or anyone else up to speed as to meeting outcomes.

 

Edited November 6 by Rich Griff

[steve too]

5 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

If the promise hadn't been made there wouldn't be any NFC.  Simples.

 

Then there shouldn't be an NFC. Simples.

 

5 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

There is a diffference between being a politician in the Treasury and somekne who has spent their lifetime assessing financial issues for both the Government and the private sector.  They are far better qualified in assessing financial viability, value for money and risks than almost all of the commenters on this thread.

 

I am not sure why you are bringing politicians into it. I would take the opinion of somebody with private sector project experience over a that of a civil servant every day of the week.